Home

TS Radio: Exposing Medical Predators with Carly Walden #2

Leave a comment

Join us Tuesday Evening January 16, 2018 at 7:00 CST!

With our new host on TS Radio:  Carly Walden

More

Nursing homes that harm seniors face fewer fines under Trump

10 Comments

Jordan Rau, Kaiser Health News

14 LINKEDIN 15 COMMENTMORE

The Trump administration — reversing guidelines put in place under President Barack Obama — is scaling back the use of fines against nursing homes that harm residents or place them in grave risk of injury.

The shift in the Medicare program’s penalty protocols was requested by the nursing home industry. The American Health Care Association, the industry’s main trade group, has complained that under Obama inspectors focused excessively on catching wrongdoing rather than helping nursing homes improve.

“It is critical that we have relief,” Mark Parkinson, the group’s president, wrote in a letter to then-President-elect Donald Trump in December 2016.

Since 2013, nearly 6,500 nursing homes — 4 of every 10 — have been cited at least once for a serious violation, federal records show. Medicare has fined two-thirds of those homes. Common citations include failing to protect residents from avoidable accidents, neglect, mistreatment and bedsores.

FROM 2015: Look up nursing home ratings in your city

The new guidelines discourage regulators from levying fines in some situations, even when they have resulted in a resident’s death. The guidelines will also probably result in lower fines for many facilities.

The change in policy aligns with Trump’s promise to reduce bureaucracy, regulation and government intervention in business. READ MORE

It’s Not about Health Care—It’s about Control

2 Comments

July 18th, 2017      For Immediate Release!

Contributor & author: Jane M. Orient, M.D., Executive Director of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

 

Preview:

  • We’re moving toward the end-game of single payer, which assures the continued diversion of funds to the Swamp. These funds are no longer available for people to choose to spend. And worse, the System will carefully control the funds that actually provide care, say by punishing doctors for deviating from government-dictated “best practices.” It will allow nothing it calls “snake oil” (things like vitamin D, hormone supplements for aging, or other generally benign items that people find worthwhile but that drain profits from government-approved treatments). Nothing “futile” like experimental treatment for Charlie Gard. Nothing experimental outside the control of the FDA (that might compete with lucrative drugs). Nothing that is not “value based” (such as life-sustaining treatment including food and water to patients not valuable enough to treat for pneumonia, heart failure, or a bleeding ulcer).
  • Last year, Nevada Medicaid paid managed-care companies as much as $213 million for more than 30,000 people who received no care at all. Maybe that money was taken from housing or law enforcement.

More

Universal Coverage Means Less Care

1 Comment

Contributor & author: Jane M. Orient, M.D., Executive Director of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

Interview – Contact Dr. Orient directly at (520) 323-3110 or by email at janeorientmd@gmail.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When the money is gone, treatment is canceled. There will be fewer beds, fewer CT scanners, fewer drugs, and fewer doctors. But all will be fair. No rationing by price, just by waiting lines, political pull—and death. There will be no medical bills to pay after a service, if you get any service. Only taxes in advance, service or no service.

That’s why the universal care advocates count enrollees, not the number of services, and constantly harp on “excessive” treatment, even while planning to make patients wait months for an appointment.”

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

May 16th, 2017

The reported success of the Affordable Care Act (ACA or ObamaCare) is based on enrollment numbers. Millions more have “coverage.” Similarly, the predicted disasters from repeal have to do with loss of coverage. Tens of thousands of deaths will allegedly follow. Activists urge shipping repeal victims’ ashes to Congress—possibly illegal and certainly disrespectful of the loved one’s remains, which will end up in a trash dump.

Where are the statistics about the number of heart operations done on babies born with birth defects, the latest poster children? How about the number of babies saved by this surgery, and the number allowed to die without an attempt at surgery—before and after ACA? I haven’t seen them. Note that an insurance plan doesn’t do the operation. A doctor does. The insurer can, however, try to block it

Also missing are figures on the number of courses of cancer chemotherapy given, or not given, or the time from diagnosis to death in cancer patients before and after ACA. Five-year survival of cancer patients in the U.S. is generally better than in countries that have universal coverage, or the type of plan progressives want to import. Again, the insurance plan isn’t medicine. You can get medicine without insurance, and if you have insurance it might refuse to pay.

There are selected comparisons of change in mortality rates in states that did or did not expand Medicaid (such as New York vs. Pennsylvania). On the other hand, mortality did not decrease in one state (Oregon). These estimates—guesstimates really, are based on the weakest type of data, and the differences may have nothing to do with Medicaid. Maybe it was better AIDS treatments. We hope that the FDA does not use evidence this poor to evaluate drugs.

But what effect did ObamaCare have on overall U.S. mortality?

Between 2014 and 2015, U.S. mortality rates increased for the first time in decades. This primarily affected less-educated whites. Is ObamaCare the cause? There are many factors involved, drug abuse probably being the most important. But I suspect that if repeal had happened in 2012 or 2013, it would have been blamed.

More

Medical Communication Companies and America’s Medical Propaganda Machine

1 Comment

Duty to Warn

By Gary G. Kohls, MD

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“(Mitochondria, by the way, are the tiny energy-producing “hearts and lungs” of every living cell in our bodies that can be poisoned by the ingredients of many of our commonly prescribed drugs and vaccines.)”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Examining One of the Many Ways That Healthcare Providers are Compelled to Over-prescribe Big Pharma’s Unaffordable, Often Toxic and Often Dependency-inducing Prescription Drug

“He who pays the piper calls the tune.” – Robert Browning

Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” Marcia Angell, MD, author of “The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It”

“The results of (usually Big Pharma-sponsored) clinical trials are submitted to the FDA, and if one or two drug trials are positive—that is, if they show effectiveness without serious risk—the drug is usually approved, even if all the other trials are negative.” — Marcia Angell, MD, author of “Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption” More

Clinton may be the “death sentence” for America and Trump is 50/50

4 Comments

new-logo25Editorial response by:  Doug Kinan

 

Globe article: Wild presidential debates have proved pivotal in trajectory of campaign – The Boston Globe

Kinan’s Response:

Both candidates have acted inappropriately and both have history.

Private sector history and public sector history are different.

Trump’s alleged history has had no impact on the nation and the world.

Clinton has three decades of public service with little to show America what has been accomplished for America and Americans.

Essentially the government no longer represents the American taxpayers. Is the status quo what America needs or wants?

On one issue alone, “immigration”, the choice should be clear. More

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: